Mr. Fox

If you run it 15 or 20 times back-to-back you will probably get a score similar to mine. It helped reduce the variance to download and install the latest Vulkan runtime. That kept my low scores from being as low and tightened the range of erratic scores. I use the 1000W vBIOS exclusively. It produces better results than the 666W Galax vBIOS, which isn't really any better than my stock Suprim firmware in terms of benching. My best results included use of the chiller, but still took a dozen runs to get one bugged enough to make the top 10. Most of the scores higher than mine have higher temperatures and lower overclocks, which is one of the telltale signs of erroneous results. That is why HWBOT is requiring ECC to be enabled for 3DMark. UL is not excluding erroneous results from validation or HOF ranking. I agree about Vulkan. I am all for helping it be successful. I do not like DX12 or Micro$lop, so an alternative is important.

I was able to get it to run with RTSS/OSD by manipulating settings in RTSS. I am not running it because it lowers benchmark scores, but I was at least able to get it to stop crashing with RTSS running. My honest opinion is this benchmark just isn't ready for prime time and it is extremely unreliable and flawed. This result is not related to tuning so much as running the benchmark enough times that it eventually pukes up an abnormally high score. Looks like this is the best score I am going to get until I have time to run the benchmark another 20 or 30 times until it calculates a higher score. I am seeing 2500-3500 3DMark points variance between runs without changing any settings. I have also tried two versions of Windows 10 (LTSC 2019 and LTSC 2021) and three versions of Windows 11 (one totally stock with all of the cancer and two mods with Micro$lop trash exorcised) and it doesn't matter how many processes or services are running in terms of benchmark results. I am still seeing lots of illogically inflated results in the HOF with people running the same hardware (CPU, mobo, drivers and vBIOS) with lower overclocks. If I lower my overclock to match the illogically high results, my scores are like 3000-4000 points lower than their reported clocks depending on how many times I re-run it. https://www.3dmark.com/sb/25014 Wild Variance (Same OC values) https://www.3dmark.com/compare/sb/25019/sb/25014#

I generally avoid buying anything from HP or Dell other than their business-class notebooks (Precision and Elitebook turdbooks) and I avoid throwing money away on disposable laptop garbage in general to the greatest extent possible. I recommend desktops over laptops to anyone that asks, and I agree with the advice to avoid HP inkjet printers. I stopped buying HP inkjets around 2005 as well. Glad to see they might be getting what they deserve for selling rubbish. Their consumer desktops are also garbage, unfortunately. They did not used to be. Once upon a time they were a fairly decent brand. I switched to Epson Workforce printers (my last one held up for more ten years) and I replaced that one with an ET-3850 EcoTank. EcoTank seems like the way to go. No complaints so far. It does a nice job and holds a ton if inexpensive ink.

Awesome, thank you. I must have posted those two old videos a long time ago and forgotten. When this thread started I assumed we were speaking about a thread or a sub-forum and I looked everywhere in the forums/sub-forums and could not find anything until @Avacadopointed out the link at the top or the page labeled "Videos" that I had not explored.

Perhaps I did not present the question clearly. Maybe I did place it in the correct spot, in a relevant discussion. In that case it does not show up in the member content thread, correct? Only where it was posted and you would need to repost it as "member content" deliberately. Right? I don't remember posting the old Z490 and Z590 videos is why I ask. I probably did and simply forgot doing it.

Read the full review HERE

Yes it is. Thank you so much. I was looking for a forum/subforum and could not identify one. I did not notice the word "Videos" in the links at the top. I am used to looking for content in a list of sub-forums and threads for content I have not seen. I am frequently stumbling on things by accident that I never knew existed even though I look was forums and sub-forum often. I find this same challenge in other forums that use the same software and often never see things in those forums as well. If you post a video in another thread does it appear under Member Content, or the only way it gets there is to go to the Member Content and post it?

Maybe I am blind, but I can't find a subforum for this. Only this https://extremehw.net/video/browse/1-ehw-podcasts/ and it is not obvious how to post a user-created video. It looks like only podcasts and not user created video content. Is there another subforum that I am not identifying?

Oh that's too funny. I just ordered some MX-6 to test to compare against the KPx I've been using for so long. KPx is better than MX-4 by a couple of degrees, but I'm curious how it will compare to the MX-6. If MX-6 at least matches KPx that will be good because it is a lot cheaper. I have not yet delidded the 13900K that I purchased as a replacement for the one that mysteriously stopped working and I want to test them against one another on a virgin CPU before I delid. The Velocity2 block is really good. Mine was impressive. It matched the performance of my Optimus block, and I love how it looks. The Velocity2 bare die block was terrible, however. My bare die temps were the same as using the IHS.

Same experience here. Worked fantastic at first, but not that durable long term. I think the question was relevant given the kit included Hydronaut. I also think @ENTERPRISEwas smart for using the Kryonaut Extreme rather than the included Hydronaut. Hydronaut is not silicon-based. Fans of it say it spreads easier that Kryonaut, which make no sense to me at all because I never thought it was difficult to spread. If anything, I think it was too soft and very easy to spread and, therefore, was more conducive to pump-out than some of the competing products that were thicker. I think Kryonaut was better suited to sub-zero cooling (LN2, DICE, etc.) because it was not subject to freezing or hardening at the extreme low temperature and Hydronaut was not good for sub-zero.

Hydronaut has never been very good when I have tried to use it. I am not sure why Thermal Grizzly still sells it. I am surprised they do not ship the Kryonaut or Kryonaut Extreme with the waterblock. Kryonaut is a decent paste for desktops. It's not ideal for laptops. I have never tried Kryonaut Extreme, but here is what the manufacturer says about it (copy/paste from Amazon product info). "Thermal Grizzly's Kryonaut Extreme is an improved version of their Kryonaut paste, with the highest thermal conductivity achieved through the use of smaller particles, a thinner minimum layer height, and improved low-temperature application."

Excellent review. It was an enjoyable read and a good representation of the product. I had an EK Velocity2 block and it was very good, and looked great, so your review resonated with my experience.

Thanks for the compliment, brother. I am not sure about your questions on the warranty issues. EKWB would need to answer. Normal wear and tear covers a wide gamut of things. One aspect is time and hours of use, but there are other aspects of wear and tear might not be time or use frequency dependent. The benchmark scoring is a reflection of clock speed and the BIOS settings were the same with all three cooler tests, and the results were within a normal margin of error. If there were a hard thermal throttle that dropped clock speeds then there would be a lower score for the system that throttled due to overheating. It bothered me that the custom loop didn't fare better, but it kind of makes sense. Where the AIO would have not done as well is under long term stress. I was not attempting to prove the custom loop better in the review. Had I run the stress test for longer we would have likely seen the water in the AIO get hotter and the temperatures increase, but the 5 minute stress test is already "more than normal" use scenario and my goal was to replicate the fringe of what a typical user would see in normal use. After the review was completed it continued to bother me that the custom loop didn't have more distance between it and the AIO. It occurred to me that I had not cleaned the waterblock in a while, so I took it apart and found the fins in the jet plate had some crud in them. After cleaning it the custom loop was a couple of degrees cooler in the same test. If the ambient temperate is the same, flow rate is sufficient and the contact adequate, allowing the AIO to efficiently remove heat from the CPU and whisk it away to the radiator at a rate equal to the custom loop the thermals will be the same until the water in the AIO gets hotter. The real benefits of the custom loop are greater coolant capacity (takes longer to get hot) and greater ability to keep the water closer to the ambient temperature for a longer period of time. Also, the ability to add more components in the loop, like GPU and RAM.

Thanks, brother.

Another sloppy mess from the clowns at UL. It is designed for laptops and weaker computing devices, so maybe the thought process is that it is just a toy, not a tool, and accuracy doesn't matter. The same erratic scoring is visible looking at details in submissions from the 3DMark Hall of Fame. It does pull some hefty watts with the ray tracing in spite of the erratic results. There is no CPU scoring and change to CPU clocks and voltage doesn't seem to affect much.

It seem very unpredictable and unreliable. Very wild extremes in scoring between runs. In less than a dozen runs on the same system I am seeing a spread of more than 10,000 3DMarks. Some people are posting illogically high benchmark scores without GPU overclocking and I think there are a lot of bugged submissions. Example: all over the board, erratic results (same computer)

Thanks for posting this. I was not even aware it existed, and I just posted some of my best Time Spy results in the past week or so. I haven't seen any mention of it anywhere until now. FYI, it doesn't like RTSS. If I have RTSS/OSD running the benchmark fails at launch with the meaningless message "an error has occurred" (typical of 3DMark errors that tell you nothing of value). If anyone else has the same issue, shut down RTSS and it should complete.

I agree with everything you said but the part quoted is something that can easily get lost in the shuffle.

Time to bump this thread. Too long with no action. https://hwbot.org/submission/5329954_ | https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/98374064 Same run above GPU score only: https://hwbot.org/submission/5329955_ https://hwbot.org/submission/5329959_ | https://www.3dmark.com/spy/40812238